Before (in good cases):
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) {}
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa : aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaa)) {}
After:
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) {}
for (auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaa)) {}
llvm-svn: 173684
Before we did not really systematically format those. Now, we format the
different cases as:
- 1 Line: a ? b : c;
- 2 Lines: short ? loooooooooong
: loooooooooong
- 2 Lines: loooooooooooooooong
? short : short
- 3 Lines: loooooooooooooooong
? loooooooooooooong
: loooooooooooooong
Not sure whether "?" and ":" should go on the new line, but it seems to
be the most consistent approach.
llvm-svn: 173683
1. Use a hanging ident for function calls nested in binary expressions.
E.g.:
int aaaaa = aaaaaaaaa && aaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaa);
2. Slightly improve heuristic for builder type expressions and reduce
penalty for breaking before "." and "->" in those.
3. Remove mostly obsolete metric of decreasing indent level. This
fixes: llvm.org/PR14931.
Changes #1 and #2 were necessary to keep tests passing after #3.
llvm-svn: 173680
These always represent a continuation and we should increase the ident.
Before:
aaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
After:
aaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa::
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
llvm-svn: 173675
This combines two small changes:
1) Put a penalty on breaking after "<"
2) Only produce a hanging indent when parameters are separated by
commas.
Before:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
aaaaaa(new Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
After:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
aaaaaa(new Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
This changes one ObjC test, but AFAICT this is not according to any
style guide (neither before nor after). We probably should be aligning
on the ":" there according to:
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/objcguide.xml?showone=Method_Invocations#Method_Invocations
llvm-svn: 173457
Otherwise, really long nested name specifiers can easily lead to a
violation of the column limit.
Not sure about the rules for indentation in those cases, so input is
appreciated (see tests.).
llvm-svn: 173438
Before:
int aaaa = aaaaa().aaaaa() // force break
.aaaaa();
After:
int aaaa = aaaaa().aaaaa() // force break
.aaaaa();
The other indent is just wrong and confusing.
llvm-svn: 173273
Before:
bool aaaa = aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
After:
bool aaaa = aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
The other indentation was a nice attempt but doesn't work in many cases.
Not sure what the right long term solution is as the "After: " is still
not nice. We either need to figure out what to do in the cases where it
"doesn't work" or come up with a third solution, e.g. falling back to:
bool aaaa =
aaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa);
which should always work and nicely highlight the structure.
llvm-svn: 173268
Layouting would prevent breaking before + in
a[b + c] = d;
Regression detected by code review.
Also fixes an invalid-read found by the valgrind bot.
llvm-svn: 173262
Having seen more cases, this actually was not a good thing to do in the
first place. We can still improve on what we do now, but breaking after
the "=" is good in many cases.
Before:
aaaaaaaaaaaaa = aa->aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
After:
aaaaaaaaaaaaa =
aa->aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaa));
llvm-svn: 173257
Before: if (int * a = &b) ...
After: if (int *a = &b) ...
Also changed all the existing tests to test the expressions in question
both in a declaration and in an expression context.
llvm-svn: 173256
We will need a more principled solution, but we should not leave this
unfixed until we come up with one.
Before: void f() { int * a; }
After: void f() { int *a; }
llvm-svn: 173252
This only affects styles where BinPackParameters is false.
With AllowAllParametersOnNextLine:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(
aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaa);
Without it:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaaa);
llvm-svn: 173246
This gives us the ability to guess better defaults for whether a *
between identifiers is a pointer dereference or binary operator.
Now correctly formats:
void f(a *b);
void f() { f(a * b); }
llvm-svn: 173243
Changing nextToken() in the UnwrappedLineParser to get the next
non-comment token. This allows us to correctly layout a whole class of
snippets, like:
if /* */(/* */ a /* */) /* */
f() /* */; /* */
else /* */
g();
Fixes a bug in the formatter where we would assume there is a previous
non-comment token.
Also adds the indent level of an unwrapped line to the debug output in
the parser.
llvm-svn: 173168
We used to align trailing comments belong to different things.
Before:
void f() { // some function..
}
int a; // some variable..
After:
void f() { // some function..
}
int a; // some variable..
llvm-svn: 173100
We now only put empty blocks into a single line, if all of:
- all tokens of the structural element fit into a single line
- we're not in a control flow statement
Note that we usually don't put record definitions into a single line, as
there's usually at least one more token (the semicolon) after the
closing brace. This doesn't hold when we are in a context where there is
no semicolon, like "enum E {}".
There were some missing tests around joining lines around the corner
cases of the allowed number of columns, so this patch adds some.
llvm-svn: 173055
Before: template <template <typename T>, typename P > class X;
After: template <template <typename T>, typename P> class X;
More importantly, the token annotations for the second ">" are now computed
correctly.
llvm-svn: 173047
').' is likely part of a builder pattern statement.
This is based upon a patch developed by Nico Weber. Thank you!
Before:
int foo() {
return llvm::StringSwitch<Reference::Kind>(name).StartsWith(
".eh_frame_hdr", ORDER_EH_FRAMEHDR).StartsWith(
".eh_frame", ORDER_EH_FRAME).StartsWith(".init", ORDER_INIT).StartsWith(
".fini", ORDER_FINI).StartsWith(".hash", ORDER_HASH).Default(ORDER_TEXT);
}
After:
int foo() {
return llvm::StringSwitch<Reference::Kind>(name)
.StartsWith(".eh_frame_hdr", ORDER_EH_FRAMEHDR)
.StartsWith(".eh_frame", ORDER_EH_FRAME)
.StartsWith(".init", ORDER_INIT).StartsWith(".fini", ORDER_FINI)
.StartsWith(".hash", ORDER_HASH).Default(ORDER_TEXT);
}
Probably not ideal, but makes many cases much more readable.
The changes to overriding-ftemplate-comments.cpp don't seem better or
worse. We should address those soon.
llvm-svn: 172804
It's generally not possible to know if 'a' '*' 'b' is a multiplication
expression or a variable declaration with a purely lexer-based approach. The
formatter currently uses a heuristic that classifies this token sequence as a
multiplication in rhs contexts (after '=' or 'return') and as a declaration
else.
Because of this, it gets bit tests in ifs, such as "if (a & b)" wrong. However,
declarations in ifs always have to be followed by '=', so this patch changes
the formatter to classify '&' as an operator if it's at the start of an if
statement.
Before:
if (a& b)
if (int* b = f())
Now:
if (a & b)
if (int* b = f())
llvm-svn: 172731
Also adding more tests.
We can now keep the formatting of something like:
static SomeType type = { aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, /* comment */
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa /* comment */,
/* comment */ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, // comment
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa };
Note that the comment in the first line is handled like a trailing line comment
as that is likely what the user intended.
llvm-svn: 172711
Before: Constructor() : a(a), // comment a(a) {}
After: Constructor() : a(a), // comment
a(a) {}
Needed this as a quick fix. Will add more tests for this in a future
commit.
llvm-svn: 172624
We used to incorrectly parse
aaaaaa ? aaaaaa(aaaaaa) : aaaaaaaa;
Due to an l_paren being followed by a colon, we assumed it to be part of
a constructor initializer. Thus, we never found the colon belonging to
the conditional expression, marked the line as bing incorrect and did
not format it.
llvm-svn: 172621
